.

,\et Cuncerning Mlarriages {1669} North Carolina History Proiect In 1663, when the Lords Proprietors obtained Carolina from King Charles II, they encouraged settlement and extended the Laws of England to their North American
possession. During the late 1660s and early 1670s, most newcomers settled the northeastern corner of Carolina--the Albemarle region. Settlers wishing to marry soon experienced a problem: only ministers of the Church of England were entitled to perform the rite of marriage and few visited or settled in Carolina.
As a result, the Assembly of Albemarle in 1669 discussed the need to authorize civil officers to perform marriage ceremonies. Opponents thought such provisions fostered immorality. Proponents of the new law were in the majority, however, and on January 20, L67O, the Lords Proprietors ratified and confirmed the new law. For the first time, civil authorities performed marriages, but they did so only if the county had no minister.

Although An Act Concerning Marriages (1669) made it easier for North Carolinians to marry and thereby alleviated colonists' fears of spreading immorality and illegitimate births, the law created another problem by not providing a provision for divorce. Below is a transcription of An Act Concerning Marriages (1669): Forasmuch as there may be divers people that are minded to be joined together in the holy state of Wedlock and for that there is noe minister as yet in this County by whom the said Partyes may be joyned in Wedlock according to the rites and customs of our native Country the Kingdome of England that none may be hindred from this soe necessary a worke for the preservation of Mankind and setlement of this County it is enacted And be it enacted by the Pallatine and the Lords Proprietors of Carolina by and with the advice and consent of the Present Grand Assembly and authority thereof that any two persons desring to be joyned together in the holy state of matrimony takeng three or fower of their Neghbours along with them and repairing to the Governor or any one of the Councell before him declaring that they doe joyne together in the holy state of Wedlock And doe accept one the other for man and wife; and the said Governor or Councellor before whom such act is performed giveing Certificate thereof and the said Ceftificate being registered in the Secrytary's Office or by the Register of the Precinct or in such other Office as shall hereafter for that use be provided It shall be deemed a Lawfull Marriage and the parties violating this Marriage shall be punishable as if they had binn marryed by a minister according to the rtes and Customs of England.
'i"r>..

'.

. 1 r-1 ,-:', "i , . Ji i; .:

-;1.

,]t

.'

f/

PAUL STAM
I

lOtisE lvlAJORITY LE;\DER

}-IOL]SE OF REPRESENT.\TIVES

\,(].

I r l HLj\]t-.R

t)ts'IRtcl'.\l)t)l{F.SS: \t)l-\. !(S'rRI-_F..

r--,<ol

Chapter 51, - Marriage, Article I .

General Provisions.
$ 51-1. Requisites of marriage; solemnization.

A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously aird
plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:

(l) a. (2)

In the presence of a ordained minister of any religious denomintion, a minister authorizedby a church, or a magistrate; and With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.

b.

Marriages solemnized before March 9, lg0g, by ministers of the gospel licensed, but not ordained, are validated from their consummation. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 3; Code, s. 1812; Rev., s. 2081; 1908, c. 47; 1909, c.704, s.2; c.897; C.5., s.2493; 1945, c. 839; 1965, c. 152;1971, c. 1185, s.26;1977, c. 592, s. l; 2000-58, ss. 1,2;2001-14, ss. 1,2;2001-62, ss. I, l7; 2002-115, ss. 5, 6; 2002-159, s. 13(a); 20034, s. l;2005-56, s. 1;2007-61, s. 1; 2009-13, s. l.)
$ 51-1.2, Marriages between persons of the same gender not

valid.

Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina. (1995 (Reg.
Sess., 1996), c. 588, s. 1.)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA sEssroN LAw 2011409 SENATE BILL 514
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE TIIAT MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL I.JNION THAT SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE.

SECTION
section:

1.

Aficle

14 of the North Caolina Constitution is amended by adding the following new

"Sec. 6. Marriage.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid o recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party fiom entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights ofprivate parties pusuant to such contacts."

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 6,2011

Democratic Legislative Leader Accuses Governor Bev Perdue And Attorney General Roy cooper of a form of "Hate speech"
(D-Orange) Former Speaker of the House (and now Minority Leader) Joe Hackney Democratic and Republican parties continues to accuse the membership and leadership of both the
Rateigh

of engaging in a "form of hate speech."

On August

30,z}IL,Speaker Hackney responded to a press conference held by Republican marriage. He stated, 'This legislaiive leaders on ih" proposed constitutional amendment to define of history, and has become a form of proposea constitutionat amendment runs against the tide
hate speech."

statute of 1996 while there are major procedural differences between the "No same sex Marriage" policy is exactly the same: North (SB 1437) and the proposed constitutional amendment, the performed in-state or out of state' on carolina will not recognize same sex marriages - whether ,,marriale amendment" is identical with the law that Gov. Bev Perdue and Attorney this point the General Roy Coopervoted for as Senators in 1996'

(but not a statute) can be But if speaker Hackney claims that only a constitutional amendment him to remember the ten current considered a "form of hate speech," it would be well for which was Democratic members of the House who have sponsored this constitutionalamendment' sessions' 2003-2004 legislative first proposed jointly by Democrats and Republicans during the

1996, should he apologize now to everyone for since speaker Hackney voted for the same policy in having engaged in a "form hate speech" himself?